Data Retention Backer Mystified That Anyone Would Oppose Such A Plan

from the can-we-list-out-the-reasons? dept

You know you're in trouble when a politician tells you that a particular new regulation will only present a "very minor burden." It seems our politicians rarely (if ever) understand the burden they do create with certain laws. In this case, it's the proposed US data retention law that is being proposed (of course) "to protect children." Europe, of course, already has data retention laws, though politicians there are similarly unconcerned about the burden. In this case, the backer of the law, Rep. Diana DeGette, insists that data retention laws are "necessary" to stop child pornographers, and can't understand why anyone would be against that. Perhaps it's because the people against it actually understand how this all works, and know that data retention tends to make it harder to find the useful data, by burying it in lots of useless data -- and that the data retention costs can be excessively expensive. In other words, this is a more expensive solution, forced on everyone, that does little to actually stop the problem. Of course, in related news, the FCC has (surprise, surprise) authorized new taxes on ISPs to pay for the mandatory wiretap access on broadband and VoIP services. Add to that some more taxes to pay for mandatory data retention, and we should all expect to see our ISP bills increase... all so that the government can more easily snoop on us, while hiding the important data and possibly exposing many more people to privacy violations. How could anyone possibly be against that?

Reader Comments

What a moron

How about we just oppose it on the grounds that federal government doesn't need the power? They already round up sex offenders on a regular basis. Seems like they already have all of the power they need to get the job done.

Besides, does the proxy server log HTTP 404 responses? What's to stop tens of thousands of nerds from running a script like this on others computers to choke up law enforcement in protest?

Taxes

Add the cost of these new taxes to the additional costs we can expect from the "tiered internet" and guess what, in a few years, the average person won't be able to afford a broadband ISP.

I read somewhere that this Congressperson also bemoaned the fact that we had almost wiped out child pornography in the 1970's, only to have it come surging back via the internet. What a load of crap. Is she really naive enough to think that because something goes underground it has been "wiped out"?

The government got away with this with phones

The 911 system, and the callerid are actually vestiges of the government's mandate to have phone systems provide tracing to law enforcement, designed to charge users for the 911 system, and callerid, when in actuallity, it is a hidden multi billion charge to pander to snoops.

They will have a harder time disguising this stupid idea and cover it up, because they wont have a few large companies to deal with, but all website operators, and that will cause hopefully enough of an outcry to stop it.

idiotic legislation like this only works if it screws a few or if the few can pass the cost along to the many. It works even better if the masses paying are dumb enough not ro realize they are being screwed

Offshore Hosting

Guess it might be time to look at moving my Web hosting offshore; another example of clueless politicians driving American jobs and American money to other countries. I wonder if anyone has explained to them how the Internet really works, and that there is absolutely no bar to anyone moving their Web presence offshore--nah, not worth it; they'll just try to find some way to make THAT illegal too!

Offshore Hosting

Offshore hosts are very helpful in avoiding taxes and keeping your details confidential. I know that http://yohost.org does a pretty good job and there are many others on the Internet you can choose from.